Battle module "Dagger". Further development of "Baikal"

77
Several years ago, the Russian industry presented a promising combat module AU-220M “Baikal”, armed with an 57-mm automatic cannon. At the expense of the new instrument, such a product should have shown significant advantages over existing systems. Subsequently, the development of "Baikal" continued. At the moment, the latest result of such work is the combat module "Dagger".


TBMP T-15 with the module "Dagger" at the site "Army-2019". Photo by Saidpvo.livejournal.com




From “Baikal” to “Dagger”


The development of remotely controlled combat modules (SDS) with 57 mm caliber guns is handled by the Petrel Research Institute, part of Uralvagonzavod. New OAS are developed in cooperation with other manufacturers of equipment. Finished products are offered for installation on the combat vehicles Uralvagonzavod and other developers.

Last year, at the Army-2018 exhibition, Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Company for the first time showed a prototype of the Armata T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle with an experimental AUBM, which is a further development of the AU-220M product. In the further development of the project continued, and by now the final appearance of such a system has been formed - it has received the name "Dagger".

In the course of "Army-2019" promising TBMP T-15 with "Dagger" for the first time officially show the public and professionals. At the same time, photographs of such a machine, made during the preparation of the exhibition, have already appeared in free access. This allows us to compare the T-15 in different configurations now and draw some conclusions.

It is expected that within the framework of the current military-technical forum "Uralvagonzavod" or the Ministry of Defense will disclose their plans for the T-15 TBMP and combat modules for it.

Design changes


From the point of view of the main features and appearance features, the promising “Dagger” differs little from the already well-known “Baikal”. As before, the proposed construction of a uninhabited tower with all the necessary weapons and equipment. At the same time, the “Dagger” is distinguished by the design of the dome, other weapons and other features.

"Dagger" is based on the armored dome of a modified form. The cross-section of the front part of the tower has been reduced, and therefore the embrasure with the attachments of the gun is prominently displayed in front of the main part of the dome. The new MFDB, like its predecessor, is placed on the roof of the carrier vehicle and occupies a minimum locally inside its hull.

Main weapon "Dagger" - modern 57-mm automatic gun. Its rate of fire exceeds 80 shots / min, the initial velocity of the projectile - 1-1,5 km / s. Vertical guidance from -5 ° to + 60 ° is provided. Ready to use ammunition - 80 shots. At a distance of 1,5 km, the Dagger cannon punches up to 120 mm of armor at an angle of 60 °.

To the right of the gun is placed a swinging casing with a PKTM machine gun of normal caliber. Ammunition - 1000 ammo. On the sides of the dome mounted several products "cloud". The right side of the module is equipped with a launcher for two containers with 9М120 “Attack” missiles. To the left of the gun and on the roof there are two blocks of optical-electronic equipment.


The main features of the "Dagger". Photo NPK "Uralvagonzavod" / bmpd.livejournal.com


Also in the complex "Dagger" includes some devices mounted inside the protected volume of the machine carrier - first of all, the control panel. The introduction of missile weapons has affected the composition of control systems. To work with “Atakoy”, the OMS of the module receives rocket tracking tools, a semi-automatic control system and devices for transmitting commands.

In terms of dimensions, the “Dagger” hardly differs from the “Baikal” - the side installation for missiles is not decisive. The total mass of the MFDB and controls is 3,85 t.

Compatibility issues


According to the developer, the Dagger module is designed to equip promising samples of armored vehicles, as well as for use in upgrading existing machines. In this case we are talking about the technique of different categories, from light to heavy weight. In fact, the use of "Dagger" is limited only by the carrying capacity and strength of the selected chassis. It should easily carry the 3850-kg combat module and cope with its impact.

Last year's experimental DUBM and the current “Dagger” were demonstrated with the heaviest of domestic platforms - TBMP T-15. An armored vehicle of this configuration is capable of carrying infantry and supporting it with fire. Powerful rocket-gun armament gives it a certain advantage.

Since last autumn, the theme of equipping the “Dagger” with a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle “Boomerang” has been repeatedly raised. In late April, the leadership of the “Military Industrial Company”, which created this machine, confirmed the fundamental possibility of creating such a model. The Dagger fits the Boomerang for a number of characteristics, but the Ministry of Defense did not order a similar version of the BMP at that time. It may appear in the future.

In recent years, the Petrel Research and Development Institute and other enterprises of the defense complex have presented a number of armored vehicle modernization projects using the AU-220М Baikal. A similar product was installed on existing platforms, such as the BMP-3. It is possible that such an approach will soon be implemented in new projects for updating old armored vehicles. From the point of view of the main features of the design and restrictions, the “Dagger” differs little from “Baikal” and is probably compatible with the same carriers.

Obvious advantages


In the proposed form, the Dagger SDSM has advantages both over other combat modules of domestic and foreign development, and over the base sample. The high potential of this product is determined by several main factors - first of all, the choice of weapons and other equipment.


T-15 with an experimental DBMS arr. 2018 g. Photo by Wikimedia Commons


A characteristic advantage of the AU-220M module and its recycled versions is the 57-mm automatic gun. Existing 30-mm guns no longer fully meet current requirements and cannot deal with most modern targets that have already received adequate protection. Projectiles caliber 57 mm are a convenient means to destroy such targets.

The new "Dagger" favorably differs from "Baikal" by the presence of guided missile weapons. The 9М120 “Attack” missiles, depending on the modification, have a range of up to 6-10 km and are capable of carrying combat units for various purposes. Thus, the use of "Attack" allows the carrier "Dagger" to attack and hit targets at large distances - outside the zone of responsibility of the gun and machine gun. In addition, the cumulative warhead ensures the defeat of heavily armored vehicles in the entire range of ranges.

All modules of the family have a positive feature in the form of the possibility of installation on different platforms. This potential of “Baikal” has already been repeatedly demonstrated with the help of various prototypes, while the “Dagger” has so far been shown only with T-15 TBMPs. Perhaps in the future the list of its real carriers will be replenished.

"Dagger" in the future


Domestic remotely controlled combat modules with 57-mm cannon and other weapons over the past few years have been demonstrated at various exhibitions in our country and abroad. Created several versions of such products that are compatible with a wide range of carriers. However, such equipment has not yet been adopted and does not enter the combat units. Thus, at the moment, the increased combat qualities of armored vehicles did not go beyond the limits of the landfills.

However, the tests themselves and their promising media continue to give the desired results. In addition, new samples are regularly shown at trade shows. There is every reason for optimism, and we can expect that in the foreseeable future both T-15 and advanced combat modules will be adopted. In the meantime, they remain at the testing stage, as well as master the role of exhibits.
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    25 June 2019 05: 03
    Provides vertical guidance from -5 ° to + 60 °

    It will not be enough for shooting in the mountains and on the upper floors of buildings.
    1. +14
      25 June 2019 06: 19
      Battle module "Dagger". Further development of "Baikal"
      and our "development" will ever end? so that everything goes to the troops and not to exhibitions? otherwise, you can develop endlessly, making ten copies.
      1. -8
        25 June 2019 11: 56
        A tank that has not passed the state test is not delivered by thousands to the army. Cry
    2. +5
      25 June 2019 11: 54
      Quote: riwas
      It will not be enough for shooting in the mountains and on the upper floors of buildings.

      Come on?!
      1. +3
        26 June 2019 12: 37
        In Afghanistan, when reflecting ambushes in gorges, the maximum elevation angle of the 30-mm BMP-2 cannon 74º was far from superfluous. We would take the ZSU 2S38 module as a basis - it has a maximum elevation angle of 75º.
    3. 0
      29 June 2019 23: 54
      , My friend, self-propelled howitzers are also not higher. An alternative is the anti-aircraft gun, however, the height of the product will increase at 88 degrees. This means that the vulnerability will increase. The vertical projection will increase. Count the pros and cons, state it clearly. Your vision.
  2. +1
    25 June 2019 05: 12
    The right side of the module is equipped with a launcher for two containers with 9M120 Ataka missiles.

    At least four in protective armored casings are necessary.
    1. 0
      17 July 2019 13: 29
      So this is a slightly different module, in the article it is incidentally reflected that missiles are not in the first place. As I understand it, this is not a module for fighting modern enemy tanks, but against light and medium armored vehicles. Against modern tanks, it is probably better not to attack but to Cornet if you purposefully equip equipment against them.
  3. 0
    25 June 2019 05: 37
    However, such equipment has not yet been adopted for service and does not enter combat units. Thus, at the moment, the increased combat qualities of armored vehicles did not go beyond the ranges.


    But this is sad to hear. There are brains, hands are there, but no money. When this mess is finally over Honestly, I'm already tired of reading about the yachts of officials at the cost of a strike aircraft carrier. And the GDP rinses everything with its tongue at "meetings with the people." TIRED !!!
    1. 0
      25 June 2019 08: 40
      and what do you want, capitalism, earned honestly on yachts under the current law
      1. NKT
        +3
        25 June 2019 23: 30
        “All major modern fortunes have been acquired in the most dishonest way” (Golden Calf)

        “The mystery of large fortunes arising out of nowhere in an impeccably committed and therefore forgotten crime” (Honore de Balzac)
        1. +2
          27 June 2019 00: 18
          Like in Dvorkovich’s favorite joke:
          "Remember sonny. You can't make all the money. Most of it will have to be stolen."
    2. 0
      17 July 2019 13: 32
      To be honest, I don’t understand why are you reading about yachts of officials or someone else? Especially if you don’t like it or if you read, then something will change? And you don’t need to communicate with the people, you rinse on the forum with your tongue, tell that you read different yellow press and how tired you are. but do nothing. This is not tired of you :)
  4. +1
    25 June 2019 05: 52
    And what do we currently have in service with a 57 mm cannon - nothing? For it is profitable for production workers to stamp outdated, but well-tuned in production 30 mm guns, which are beginning to yield to their Western counterparts in terms of characteristics! This is the whole of Russia - having the world's best module "Baikal" in its class, we still do not have it on military equipment in the army.
    1. 0
      17 July 2019 13: 39
      Well, you wouldn’t particularly touch Russia, for some reason many lovers have become dirty languages ​​almost rinse the country. I’ll tell you a secret - in the army, everything always changes extremely slowly. Not only in Russia, which you love to persuade. Because the new weapons are used differently, they have different characteristics, the equipment on which is 30 mm, not the fact that it is designed for 57 mm, it has more recoil and the module weight (possibly) is less than the ammunition base. look at modern developments - in any country for the most part they began to be developed ten or more years ago. Not all, of course. But from having and changing everything is a very long way, I am glad that you know faster. Apparently.
  5. +1
    25 June 2019 06: 13
    The karma of 57 mm guns is bad or something. Then they curtail production, "because of excess capacity", and use the crap. The war showed the need for this caliber as an anti-tank weapon, time has passed, and how many soldiers died. And here the analogy suggests itself, why 57 when there are 30 mi. The story still develops in a spiral ...
    1. 0
      30 June 2019 00: 02
      Grabin Zis-2 was really redundant in anti-tank aspect at the time of the start of production. And quite expensive in production. Grabin initiatively developed and began to produce the famous BALERINA 76mm division Zis-3. On the Zis-2 carriage. Later, when it took a lot of armor-piercing, it 2 The flow was easily returned in parallel.
  6. 0
    25 June 2019 07: 08
    All systems with a prominent (non-conformal) arrangement of tracking systems, i.e. "Tower-eyes" of optical-electronic means of target designation, guidance, control ... - all these systems work "according to the specification" until the carrier first hits the damaging kinetic energy .. bullets, shrapnel.

    The day is not far off when the link of the fermenting mini-drones “blinds” this technique - especially without the means of protection with kinetic, electromagnetic or other energy.

    1. These towers should be considered as periscope (s); the recession of these towers is desirable / necessary, and not their continuous "sticking out"
    2. If you cannot develop algorithms for discrete (non-continuous) observation and control, then disperse the functions of the towers between several that “emerge” little predictably.
  7. +2
    25 June 2019 07: 14
    Multiplication of Entities. If the troops need a light tank, then why should they land an assault in it. And is this light tank needed when there are self-propelled guns with weapons capable of performing the same tasks. If the BMP-3 is no longer satisfactory, let’s say so, and if it is satisfactory, then why is a heavy BMP necessary? Design offices went on a free search and create products on the principle of just to create. As in America, arms are created not to fight, but in order to sell. And in general, the situation began to resemble the pre-war in the aircraft industry, when design bureaus created, without a good expert study, various fighters, and the state adopted them all. And then there was 1941.
  8. +5
    25 June 2019 07: 54
    However, the "historical parallel"! Yes For example: 1. first a "single-shot" 73-mm gun (cannon) on the BMP-1; then, an automatic 30-mm cannon on the BMP-2 ... 2. first a "single-shot" 100-mm gun; then an automatic 57-mm cannon ... Another "round" of the historical spiral! wink
    1. -2
      29 June 2019 11: 15
      There will be no "turn". The 57-mm assault rifle will not be adopted by Russian infantry fighting vehicles.
      BM. "Baikal" is a concept for the BTV of the Bl.Vostoka and Africa.
      1. 0
        29 June 2019 14: 45
        Quote: Private-K
        There will be no "turn". The 57-mm assault rifle will not be adopted by Russian infantry fighting vehicles.

        Here is a seemingly "perfect" reason to argue for a bottle of good cognac! But I will not ... because I myself am not 100% sure that the 57-mm cannon is what the Russian Armed Forces need. By the way, among the developments of "recent times" there is also an automatic 45-mm cannon ... but also there are doubts about the "successful implementation of the development." (if you really count, then you need to take on the calibers: 1. 40 mm; 2. 35/45 mm; 3/40/45 mm ...)
  9. +3
    25 June 2019 08: 24
    “Dagger”, “Baikal”, “Armata”, “Baikal” ... let at least one thing be “brought to mind” but in such a way that it really comes to the troops! So far, the BMP-2 and BRT - 80 are still “our everything”! We have the potential, it seems, only for exhibitions is enough for the sale of military equipment abroad. Some kind of endless reproduction of the lineup ... and the overwhelmingly large number of armored vehicles in the troops is probably still of the 80-90 model. "Chic, shine, crackle."
    1. 0
      25 June 2019 13: 41
      Well, the BTR-82A is just enough in the army now, so it’s not the only 80s alive (although as for me it’s also an ersatz, the base is the same as cardboard, plus from the recoil of the gun it’s even visually visible as the case leads, which is accurate and resource does not add). But with the rest, yes, I agree. Even the T-72 to B3 in the army is far from all brought.
      1. 0
        25 June 2019 16: 42
        BTR-82, this is BTR-80, almost all of the old buildings or on their basis, ammunition and modernized (if you can call it that).
        Just the same, there are no complaints about the T72b +, its gun is excellent, its armor is sufficient, and it copes with the new role of tanks as self-propelled guns, he would have been screwed up with a normal KAZ and would not lose its relevance for several decades, which can not be said about everyone else Russian armored personnel carriers, which are absolutely 100% completely outdated in the trash and do not meet absolutely no modern requirements
  10. 0
    25 June 2019 09: 06
    That's right, after all, "Baikal" is a marine complex and it is very different from what is needed on land. Therefore, the "Dagger" appeared. I think the transition to 57mm is correct, 30mm no longer ensures the defeat of either armored objects or manpower in PPE (unless a direct hit). Modern MSA will allow not to burn the ammunition in vain, and the large elevation angle of the gun will allow howitzer fire from closed positions for correction. The power of the HE shell will already allow this. There is no need to drive the "box" into direct fire under enemy AT-weapons. Longer firing range will allow to drive off anti-tank helicopters from the missile launch line. Yes, and walls of 2 bricks can be confidently punched from afar. The armament of the BMP-3 100 + 30 is still too difficult for an ordinary conscript gunner, and 57 with a normal FCS is just that. So I can see from my couch bully
    1. 0
      25 June 2019 09: 50
      Quote: Yrec
      I consider the transition to 57mm correct,


      I agree, but why the machine? Device for accelerated loading, yes. But an assault rifle for an infantry fighting vehicle with an amphibious assault is not a necessary luxury (intelligence. Where the crew is possible).

      Quote: Yrec
      will allow howitzer fire from closed positions for adjustment


      Well, for the infantry such a load. Let the line (well, half-line) not miss. And PDO is not their business (purely perversion).

      Quote: Yrec
      Armament BMP-3 100 + 30,


      But this is not for universal BMP (for specialized you can).
      1. 0
        30 June 2019 00: 08
        There are shooting tables. Well, not 152 in a radius of 5 meters, but with a dozen with a spread of 15, carry your legs from a position
    2. 0
      25 June 2019 12: 03
      Quote: Yrec
      Longer firing range will allow to drive off PT helicopters from the line of missile launch

      Oh, how! belay
    3. 0
      26 June 2019 14: 34
      Quote: Yrec
      A longer firing range will make it possible to drive off PT helicopters from the line of missile launch.

      This is not even for all SAM systems.
      Quote: Yrec
      The armament of the BMP-3 100 + 30 is still too complicated for a regular conscript gunner

      Well, this is how you will be selected and taught.
      1. -1
        26 June 2019 20: 03
        Quote: Bad
        Well, this is how you will be selected and taught.

        Low-pulse gun 100 mm with an elevation angle of 60 degrees - howitzer. In principle, there is no one to teach how to shoot a BUT from a PDO in the MCP, as there is no one in the MCP to control the fire of an almost howitzer division (14 vehicles). For today, this issue, as I see it, is not resolved. Serious fire opportunities of the company are missed.
        1. -2
          29 June 2019 11: 26
          Firing with PDO is carried out in an automated mode. The coordinate is entered into the EBV; it gives out pickup angles. In addition, it is possible to empirically enter a target that is out of line of sight by introducing an adjustment for the measured distances to the objects closest to the target.
          No other BMP artillery systems allow this.
          Moreover, in the presence of a tactical ACCS of which the troops are now saturated, the subunit fire control can be carried out in "artillery" mode, when the subunit commander provides all the necessary data for firing at combat vehicles in an automated mode.
          ...
          Howling about "there is no one to teach artillery in MSR" - just a sign of incompetence or bias capable of lying. The infantry officers are fully trained in basic artillery concepts and are able to put them into practice. If there is anything and give an opportunity. In addition, there are additional courses where someone needs to be trained / retrained in a short time.
          1. 0
            30 June 2019 08: 37
            Quote: Private-K
            Howling about "there is no one to teach artillery in MSR" is just a sign of incompetence or bias capable of lying. The infantry officers are fully trained in basic artillery concepts and are able to apply them in practice.

            Firstly, there are no motorized infantry in the RA. Secondly, there are things that are taught precisely in artillery military universities. Thirdly,
            Quote: Private-K
            Firing with PDO is carried out in an automated mode. The coordinate is entered into the EBV; it gives out pickup angles.

            exclusively in your fantasies. Do you want to challenge, give the parameters and capabilities of the BMP-3 sighting system. In addition, the shooting of the unit for the installation of NZO, PZO - this is a slightly different area that requires special training. And you look, who has the responsibility to control the fire of military vehicles, for example, MCBs in battle? Everything will become clear that there is a discrepancy between practice and theoretical possibilities.
            1. 0
              30 June 2019 14: 43
              First, motorized infantry, motorized infantry are synonyms.
              Secondly, about fantasy - look in the mirror. Officers of the tank and motorized rifle troops undergo artillery training without fail. A long time ago. Years since the 2s so for sure. This is a required item in the program.
              Thirdly, I’m not talking about any PZO-NZO. Do not attribute to me. We are talking about shooting op unobserved targets - the standard type of fire exercises for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
              B-4x, the BMP fire control is assigned to the commander of the MCO, and the tank - the commander. The commander msv / msr or tv / tr can take on the function of centrally managing such fire. Moreover, it is directly prescribed to him in a number of situations. The presence of modern automated navigation systems (with location), communications (data transfer), troop control (tactical ASUV) and trajectory calculation (EBV on each combat vehicle) simplifies and improves these capabilities.
              B-5x, All tanks and infantry fighting vehicles have sights for firing with PDO at unobserved targets. You open any detailed descriptions (manuals, manuals, etc.) - there it is indicated.

              Do not disgrace yourself in your ignorance.
              1. 0
                30 June 2019 17: 29
                Quote: Private-K
                I’m not talking about any PZO-NZO.

                And that’s the question. The KR has a howitzer division at its disposal, almost, and fire control of such a unit is the lot of specialists, and not those who have been "briefed". See how many officers are involved in this business in the art divisions. And compare with what the MSR commander has.
                Quote: Private-K
                Officers of the tank and motorized rifle troops undergo artillery training without fail. A long time ago. Years since the 1960s so for sure. This is a required item in the program.

                Well, tell me, what kind of art tasks do cadets of combined arms schools solve? How many shots are assigned to them for study, what exercises are practiced by them? You are talking nonsense.
        2. 0
          2 July 2019 00: 50
          Quote: Den717
          In principle, there is no one to teach how to shoot BUTs with a PDO in the MCP, as there is no one in the MCP to control the fire of an almost howitzer division (14 cars)

          And what equipment is available in the BMP-3 for providing firing with a PDO, can there be a panorama, or at least a lateral level?
          1. 0
            2 July 2019 06: 12
            Quote: Bad
            And what equipment is available in the BMP-3 for firing with PDO

            There is a ballistic computer, into which the target range can be entered manually, in any case, there should be such a possibility. For it was not bad people who envisaged raising the gun to 60 degrees, and this is already "mortar" shooting. On old tanks, such as T-55, the level was. And shooting with the PDO was provided. I think that the BMP-3 should also allow this. I finished my service on the BMP-2, so I can't tell you the details.
            1. 0
              2 July 2019 09: 35
              Quote: Den717
              For it was not bad people who envisaged raising the gun to 60 degrees, and this is already "mortar" shooting.

              People are certainly not bad, because in addition to 2A70 in a gun mask are 2A72 and PKT, and the commander has 1PZ-10 for firing at the CC.
  11. +1
    25 June 2019 10: 13
    The C-60 is a good weapon, the capabilities of which are limited by the absence of modern ammunition.
  12. +2
    25 June 2019 10: 53
    I misunderstood the most important thing. Is the programming equipment for the "smart" shot on this DUM? If not, then this is marking time and not a step forward.
  13. +1
    25 June 2019 12: 05
    Good news! 57mm cannon is another matter! The 30-mm caliber on land vehicles has exhausted itself! Even the 30 mm AGS-17 (30) is no longer relevant and is changing to the 40-mm "Balkan"! The only comment on the "Dagger": Why containers with ATRM "Attack" - not protected by steel covers? After all, these missiles were defended on the Terminator 2 after the open Terminator 1 ?! The Ministry of Defense must immediately establish the requirements: "ATGM missiles must be protected from bullets and shrapnel!" Is it really not clear anyway that any stray bullet or splinter will fall into the container with the rocket and this is "ballast" ?!
    1. 0
      25 June 2019 19: 16
      The MO must immediately establish the requirements: "ATGM missiles must be protected from bullets and fragments"! Is it really not clear

      Well, you, it’s clear, but how they will install it (in 3-4 years) - then they’ll come up with a different name :))
      But seriously, yes, it should. As well as the radar, the visibility should be reduced (the capes are good, but in position, but on the march ... there is no need in air radars for tens of kilometers. It shines brightly. The ideal of the future is a stealth car with full electric propulsion (for some time there is no IR signature). new ones (like T-14,15) and "mobilization" ones - to the base of old T-72.
  14. 0
    25 June 2019 12: 41
    From the point of view of the main features and features of the appearance, the promising “Dagger” differs little from the already known “Baikal”

    Then why don't they call it Baikal mod.2and come up with a new name? Are over already names for the Russian weapons, they began to repeat them! (There used to be such a marine missile ...) The society of these expenses does not control, why pretend to be new ...?
    "Dagger" in the future

    He has no future, they will change the camouflage and come up with a new name!
  15. -1
    25 June 2019 14: 08
    I have only 57 complaints about this 2mm ad
    1. stop saying that it is universal. This is a gun for hitting light armored vehicles with limited parallel capabilities of air defense and fire support. It's time to recognize this and make a really useful and efficient machine, and not a fishing rod that works through a tower crane.
    2. entering this gun into the troops may be useful or not, I don’t know the answer yet, but now it will greatly inhibit the rearmament of other, ready-made and 100% necessary models, because the budget is not rubber
    1. D16
      0
      25 June 2019 20: 59
      This is a gun for hitting light armored vehicles with limited parallel capabilities of air defense and fire support.

      Judging by the very characteristic "peeps" from "Derivation", the air defense capabilities there are not so limited. On the contrary, a very versatile, useful and super-protected BMP is obtained. smile
      Now it will significantly slow down the rearmament to other, ready-made and 100% necessary models, as the budget is not rubber

      Why are you so worried about the budget? laughing They are not going to change all BMP-1-2s. Why are you convinced that the main problem of rearmament is the lack of money? An example of the fleet shows that the problems are clearly not there.
    2. -1
      27 June 2019 15: 22
      and 57mm shells with remote detonation? in the mountains and during the storming of buildings, and on heavy equipment to beat the kit ...
    3. 0
      30 June 2019 00: 13
      please enlighten about ready and necessary
  16. 0
    25 June 2019 14: 26
    Mastering the release of shells with remote detonation is critical, otherwise the infantry fire support function will be inferior. Yes, and PKT on Kord should be replaced as on the Slovenian installation. There’s enough space.
    1. D16
      +1
      25 June 2019 21: 05
      There are optics from Derivation. So there must be a blast controlled by LL.
  17. 0
    25 June 2019 15: 30
    Quote: senima56
    Why are containers with ATCA anti-tank systems not protected by steel covers? After all, these missiles were defended on the Terminator 2 after the open Terminator 1 ?!

    Well, on "T-2" missiles were "protected" just awesome. Taking into account the fact that this technique operates in tank formations and, as it were, should "hold" everything that flies into the tanks. Or, according to the version of our UVZ, a tank can be fired from cannons / RPGs / ATGMs / etc., etc., and in BMPT - only from the rifle.

    And if you think at all: are ATGMs needed for tank support equipment (and the T-14 will somehow act "on the edge" and is always very close to the MBT with which module you shouldn't do it)? That is, here we are pushing 57-mm drin, sacrificing ammunition and the general rise in the cost of each machine, and it turns out that even this one needs additional reinforcement with missiles (expensive + equipment for launching them). After all, it suddenly turns out that even the 57-mm does not penetrate modern MBT! And why TBMP or BMPT to punch tanks, if the rows IS ALWAYS Should normal MBTs operate with normal ATGM guns / launchers? That there is a direct real threat to meet with enemy tanks when there are none near you? Or maybe it’s because the main trunk at the right range cannot with sufficient probability hit a point target like an enemy BMP / BTR (or it can hit with an unacceptably high expense 80-projectile ammunition)? The rate of fire has dropped almost to that of a tank ... (I’m already silent about the alleged anti-aircraft capabilities, which are declared: in order to actually shoot down something in the air with single shots, even taking into account the programming of detonation, you need to have an MSA on each armored personnel carrier a la "Polyment-Redoubt" with all that it implies).

    By the way, about detonation: is it not the very possibility of creating a projectile with programmable detonation that we owe to the emergence of a modern 57 mm caliber (equipment did not fit into a smaller projectile ...)? After all, if you look to the west, then there the evolution of the guns proceeded intelligently and consistently through 20-25-35 mm, creating in parallel many samples of shots (including programmed ones), obviously trying to "squeeze" everything possible from the old calibers. And we have riveted themselves universal (navy-army-aviation) 30-mm for forty years and then ... oops! Now let's cut everything in 57 mm! Is it to dispose of old S-60 shells from warehouses? Are you out of 30 mm? And what is not 37 mm from 61-K? The Germans, for example, get a remote detonation in their 35x228 hide, but ours in 37x252 is weak? We also had a well-developed 45mm caliber in the past. Or just want to "have no analogues in the world"? But there would be a human stock of shells of 200-300 pieces. with a mixed high-explosive armor-piercing tape and the ability to fire 2-2,5 rounds per second (so for sure of different types).
    It seems that 57-mm is in general a very "compromise" option: on the one hand, IMHO is slightly redundant to defeat infantry and light equipment, on the other hand, with a clearly small ammunition load, caliber restrictions (weight, volume, recoil, turn rate, etc.) and a low rate of fire. And here there is already a need for food selectivity: how many land mines / BB to take? How do I change the type? Well, of course, you can try to develop a kind of "universal projectile" like the Americans for a tank ... Does the possibility of remotely detonating a land mine outweigh all these disadvantages?
    1. 0
      25 June 2019 19: 23
      Quote: CouchExpert
      That there is a direct real threat to meet with enemy tanks when there are none near you?

      But what about! The misuse and misuse of BTT is the scourge of our army. Remember how tank and infantry commanders constantly strove to use the SU-76 as a medium tank.
      It seems that the BMPT gave ATGM in case the unit commander decides to use them on some minor site alone - and there they will run into the enemy’s MBT.
      Quote: CouchExpert
      And we have riveted themselves universal (navy-army-aviation) 30-mm for forty years and then ... oops! Now let's cut everything in 57 mm! Is it to dispose of old S-60 shells from warehouses? Are you out of 30 mm? And what is not 37 mm from 61-K? The Germans, for example, get a remote detonation in their 35x228 hide, but ours in 37x252 is weak? In the past we had a well-developed 45-mm caliber. Or just want to "have no analogues in the world"?

      Everything is much simpler - "Petrel" really wanted to eat. But for half a century, the malevolent naval forces did not want to return the 57-mm caliber to the fleet, reasonably claiming that they were quite satisfied with the much more powerful AK-176, which, moreover, could even be shoved into the RCA. Together with the naval forces, the border guards also abandoned the 57-mm caliber. And then the "Petrel" sawed through the naval cannon into the land one - and began to shove it into the army. After all, the AU-220M is the land-based version of the A-220M, which in turn is a modernization of the A-220 cannon developed at the end of the 60s of the last century.
      1. 0
        25 June 2019 23: 54
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But what about! The misuse and misuse of BTT is the scourge of our army. Remember how tank and infantry commanders constantly strove to use the SU-76 as a medium tank.
        It seems that the BMPT gave ATGM in case the unit commander decides to use them on some minor site alone - and there they will run into the enemy’s MBT.

        Well, after all, then it was "not up to show-off": there were severe 40s, we fought as best we could. And then if there were always normal 34s at hand, who would torment self-propelled guns? In addition, there is just a case with a similarity to a tank in armament: logic like "we will shoot and hit, but on us ... maybe not." Sometimes it rolled. Shifting to the present, it is like having to replace the T-72 with "Octopus".
        Another thing is when to hit the target there is no confidence even if you hit. Of course, even the MBT will not be happy to catch a 57-mm fugasca ... but I would like something "more serious". Are they going to make an armor-piercing projectile in general (or maybe some here think that it goes to the anti-aircraft gun "in the kit" like the Flak 36 or 52-K)? But this is also money for R&D.
        Another example of the fact that "more is better" not always: the 37-mm anti-aircraft guns during the war had higher armor penetration than the first "forty-fives" - 38 versus 35 per 1000 m (36% relatively longer barrel - 62,6 against 46 calibers). The sub-caliber 37 mm gave out already up to 57 mm at the same range even then. And if you make a modern analogue? The sub-caliber 30 mm from 2A42 (30/80 clb.) Can be "overclocked" to almost the same values. And how much can a modern sub-caliber 37-mm show?
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Everything is much simpler - "Petrel" really wanted to eat. But for half a century, the malevolent naval forces did not want to return the 57-mm caliber to the fleet, reasonably claiming that they were quite satisfied with the much more powerful AK-176, which, moreover, could even be shoved into the RCA. Together with the naval forces, the border guards also abandoned the 57-mm caliber. And then the "Petrel" sawed through the naval cannon into the land one - and began to shove it into the army. After all, the AU-220M is the land-based version of the A-220M, which in turn is a modernization of the A-220 cannon developed at the end of the 60s of the last century.

        "And 200 rubles won't save the giant of thought?" In the sense that the comrades do not have a desire there to "dust off" 61-K (nee Bofors) or NS-37? Or maybe the same 2A42 under 37-mm bore? There would be more sense.
    2. 0
      26 June 2019 10: 11
      By and large. for a 57 mm gun, an addition in the form of ATGMs is useless in tank duels, such vehicles should not be involved, and if you have to, then a 57 mm OFS is enough to knock down all the attached equipment and optics from the tank. For the destruction of fortified points and work on buildings 57, too, is quite enough. A universal projectile is needed with the possibility of remote detonation and explosion behind an obstacle.
    3. -1
      29 June 2019 11: 34
      Quote: CouchExpert
      That there is a direct real threat to meet with enemy tanks when there are none near you?

      "I'll be brief" (c) GDP. The answer is YES.
      Without ATGM BMP becomes notindependent combat vehicle. What for the leading edge combat vehicle unacceptably.
  18. +1
    25 June 2019 19: 19
    The new DBM, like its predecessor, is located on the roof of the carrier vehicle and occupies the minimum locally inside its body.

    Then the question is - where is the BC?
    Because the same "Baikal" has two options for "exhibition" performance - only the combat module and the "full" one. And in "full" the volume of BO occupied is quite large.
    1. +1
      25 June 2019 20: 24
      Baikal with an ammunition load of 80 pcs is compact. The fact that the photo is a Baikal with a reloading system for more than 200 shots.
    2. +2
      25 June 2019 21: 03
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Then the question is - where is the BC?

      Volume 121 shells 57 mm 0,5 m3. And if the landing is done per person less freely fits. Here's another question - why the hell do you need a machine?

      And 57 mm has long been asked for as a fire weapon (universal) of the infantry squad, capable of working both in different types of combat and in various conditions.
      1. -1
        27 June 2019 15: 11
        Quote: chenia
        Here's another question - why the hell do you need a machine?

        And without the function of the machine, how much will the weight, dimensions and cost of 57 mm decrease?
        And what additional opportunities can this give? Type of elongated or compound shot? Or something else?
        1. +1
          27 June 2019 18: 40
          Quote: Lontus
          And without the function of the machine, how much will the weight, dimensions and cost of 57 mm decrease?

          25-30% for sure, but most importantly reliability. Also the ability to choose the type of projectile. (automatic machine for specialized systems (air defense), or reconnaissance (but 57 mm is not needed there) where the main function is not directly fire contact.

          If we are talking about the weaponry of the MS department (the technology of special units or for certain conditions is excluded, it has the right to be, but this is another topic), then universality is the main quality (and this means naturally that these systems will be inferior to any specialized one). And I think that the 57 mm ultimate caliber (high ballistics) is just in the form of a station wagon.

          Quote: Lontus
          Type of elongated or compound shot? Or something else?


          I have spoken several times about telescopic composite (three in one) shots (low ballistics), where the charge is needed to throw no further than 2, well, up to 3 km. The department then basically conducts the battle up to 1 km, or even 500-700 m.
          In the offensive (here, up to 500 m and closer), the main thing is to first press down the enemy infantry. so that she doesn’t protrude, and then allow (the second) her to approach the object (large calibers will not allow this, but they (artillery) always participate in this event, and as it should carry out the transfer of fire, taking into account RBU, and do not need to replace it (all equally will not work).

          In defense (here the problems of caliber and number of ammunition units are insignificant (there is no landing force in the vehicle - Fire ambush or armored group), and also at the positions (main, reserve) BPs can be laid out in advance (that's why "Bakhcha" is more effective in this case).
          But we have a station wagon. But it’s also possible to hit the enemy’s dismounted infantry at a farther range.
          And high accuracy (the target is areal), both in the first and in the second case is not needed (at the same time we get rid of one more type of weapon - AG (just effective in these cases).

          Well, about the use of quality guns (high ballistics), many have already told, such as the defeat of any armored vehicles (with the exception of tanks and tank-like BMs) at the maximum range and certain (auxiliary) air defense functions — naturally shooting in the direction (to fright).
      2. -2
        29 June 2019 11: 38
        A 57 mm assault rifle to a universal means of motorized infantry separation, like cancer to the moon. At least because of the inability to reliably and inexpensively hit the main nomenclature of goals. In fact, the 57-mm anti-ballistic gun is good only against light and medium armored objects.
    3. 0
      27 June 2019 12: 16
      I have seen references to the fact that the new 57mm will replace the "infernal thresher" ZSU 57x2
      But how useful was this setup?
      1. -2
        29 June 2019 11: 40
        ZSU-57-2 was in service with the anti-aircraft artillery regiments of tank divisions. Only. And that is limited because not so much in itself. Replaced by towed S-60.
        About "hellish threshers" is poetry.
        1. 0
          4 July 2019 08: 17
          I wonder what the stupid ignorant creatures are minus against? Against the obvious fact?
  19. 0
    26 June 2019 10: 17
    Quote: D16
    the main problem of rearmament is the lack of money?

    lack of money is always important
    take for example the pack-fa program. due to the unexpected refusal of the Indians and the cessation of financing, the program was stopped for at least a year.
    for other programs - supplies are cut everywhere due to budget constraints.
    I have no doubt that this 57mm pepelats can be useful,
    but why doesn’t anyone think that for his sake he will have to give up something else, no less useful?
    1. D16
      0
      26 June 2019 19: 01
      And where can I read about the inhibition of the T-50 program due to the release of Indians from FGFA?
      1. 0
        27 June 2019 10: 40
        Quote: D16
        And where can I read about the braking of the T-50 program

        Yes, at least news on the distribution of the development budget.
        if no money is allocated, the work is worth it.
        Indians had to finance the development of avionics and software. Maybe something else, I don’t remember. Now T50 is still bringing the software, and these works were supposed to be completed before the delivery of engines of the 2nd stage.
        1. D16
          0
          27 June 2019 12: 09
          That is, OBS laughing . The software will be delivered endlessly. From one modification to another. Take a look at the news about the new F-35 software at 200 bucks per line. lol
          1. 0
            27 June 2019 12: 13
            I'm on a funding schedule, not a size.
            still some kind of dark story with the development of 2 stages of the engine
            I am sure that with so many postponements and actually rework
            (news about engine readiness and actual readiness is more than 8 years away)
            there, too, there were difficulties with the financing of work, and as a result, delays in work.
            1. D16
              0
              27 June 2019 13: 47
              Americans completed their 414 for a long time. From the first flight to LL to the adoption of weapons passed EMNIP eight years. What does this motor different from 404 th dimension. Ours swung to the best characteristics in the dimension of Al-31. No wonder this takes time. Developments can be filled with loot, but in the end you won’t get anything. So everything is not so clear. If work is not written in the newspaper, then this does not mean that it does not go. Keep in mind that engine building has never been a strong point of our military-industrial complex.
    2. -1
      29 June 2019 11: 44
      It will be especially interesting when you find out how much a shrapnel shell with a trajectory detonation will cost. Such a shell could afford - and even then only in limited quantities - the US Navy and a bit of Sweden. Yeah.
      But such shells will need to be fired by tens of thousands. For BMP, this is unacceptable. For ZSU - tolerant, but also a toad presses.
      1. -1
        30 June 2019 08: 02
        Someone carefully went through all my comments and otminusovat.
        Apparently I broke his dreams
        There was nothing to say to the brow. Though so pricked.
        Well, I, here, so be it, I will say the following: procurement price by the navy 57-mm 3P shells with GGE and trajectory detonation cost him 1200 dollars. per pc The projectile weighs 2,4 kg. The price of silver in the market is approx. $ 0,5 per gram. I.e., just the price of such a projectile is equal to the weight of pure silver (995 samples) of the same weight.
  20. 0
    27 June 2019 13: 50
    Quote: Thrifty
    according to characteristics, they begin to concede to western analogues

    The 20mm BMP-2 gun began to concede even 30 years ago.
    it’s not about who is cooler, but in accordance with the tasks.
    if it was necessary to drive infantry out of it - what for armor penetration is necessary?
  21. -1
    27 June 2019 15: 23
    Quote: TENET
    and 57mm shells with remote detonation?

    I don’t take science fiction into account.
  22. -1
    18 August 2019 02: 04
    Quote: riwas
    The right side of the module is equipped with a launcher for two containers with 9M120 Ataka missiles.

    At least four in protective armored casings are necessary.

    And what is not eight or seventeen? Why four, not three and not five?
    The designer and author of the TK, for example, will be able to answer why two and why attacks, and what are your arguments?
  23. -1
    18 August 2019 02: 08
    Quote: Thrifty
    And what do we currently have in service with a 57 mm cannon - nothing? For it is profitable for production workers to stamp outdated, but well-tuned in production 30 mm guns, which are beginning to yield to their Western counterparts in terms of characteristics! This is the whole of Russia - having the world's best module "Baikal" in its class, we still do not have it on military equipment in the army.

    Yeah, "inferior", you would at least glance at profile sources sometimes
  24. -1
    18 August 2019 02: 31
    Quote: yehat
    Quote: TENET
    and 57mm shells with remote detonation?

    I don’t take science fiction into account.

    Then read the news two years ago
  25. 0
    April 22 2023 21: 32
    Combat module "Dagger". Further development of "Baikal"
    Development is a good thing. But new modern combat vehicles with these combat modules should be in the army, and not at the exhibition.